In article <ewright.719013536@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>You snub comm sats in favor of mining the asteroids.
Huh? Not at all. I promote them both. Furthermore, I think that
asteroid mining missions (and the volatile extraction missions that
will likely precede them) should use the same launchers as comsats,
instead of demanding their own special-purpose hardware. That's
one big reason why comsats and the military are so important. New
large-scale commercial enterprises can't afford to build from scratch,
and with a thriving, sharing space community there is no need for them to
do so. I have a big problem with proposals like SSF and FLO that soak up
huge chunks of the budget in their own enclosed, built-from-scratch world,
the result being they don't provide any benefits or economies of scale
for other space users. They are parasitic instead of symbiotic.
>Or maybe, just maybe, Nick, they have enough imagination to believe
>that space is big enough for more than *one* businesses.
I've dreamed up over a dozen original concepts which I've posted here,
while you repeat ancient dogma. I've got you beat cold in the
imagination category. The issue here is the economic validity of these
plans, the net present value that pops out of the spreadsheet. That,
more than any other single factor, is what will turn imagination into reality.
>Meanwhile, you refuse to be pinned down about any of the holes
>in your scheme, which depends on the commercial availability of
>AI technologies that don't exist even in the laboratory.
Automated volatile extraction requires good controls and high
reliability. It does not require "AI", the definition
of which seems to be "the hard problems" -- as soon as
they're solved they're no longer AI.
--
Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat //////// Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:57:28 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <szabo@techbook.com>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <ewright.719011934@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>[lotsa heated rhetoric]
Neither asteroid or lunar enterprises have any signficant commercial
funding. Neither are ready for that yet. My point is that these
enterprises can and should be analyzed from an industrial and
commercial viewpoint, and NASA should support them with exploration
and tech R&D accordingly. It is ridiculous to devote most of the resources
to the moon because of obsolete "next logical step" dogma, or because
one wants to include astronauts. We need diveristy -- lunar exploration
_and_ asteroid exploration _and_ comet exploration. Doing them all
can be quite cheap if we start taking a sophisticated, in-depth look
at the problem and the technology available, instead of dogmatically
insisting on the traditional, ridiculously huge and expensive methods.
We also need to look at the material needs of industry and start designing
future commercial scenarios around the bottom line. It is ridiculous
to focus on the moon when the vast majority of industrial processes
require volatiles, and by far the largest industrial input is volatiles,
and volatiles are not found on the moon.
>Every time someone mentions a potential
>project that is not backed by Nick Szabo Enterprises, you tell us
>that it's already been rejected by private enterprise.
This is nonsense. I've rejected two or three kinds of proposals,
out of a vast universe of possibilities. You keep proposing the
same failed or grossly uneconomical strategies over and over again,
and I keep rejecting them over and over again.
>Why is anyone who advocates a manned space program, even one that's
>not run by the government, denounced as a socialist
Not by be. But the economically ludicrous "private enterprise astronaut"
plays right into the hands of those who insist that government knows
best when it spends the majority of NASA $$$ on astronauts, and that
the needs of astronauts should dominate regardless of the needs
of our commerical and military space needs. I'm objecting to NASA
dictation of the direction of space industry, especially the style that
snubs the real users of space in commerce and the military. I'm not
objecting to rational, diverse government support for space R&D and
exploration, or private attempts to do whatever they want with their
own money.
>And why do you wax poetic about how your asteroid-mining robots
>will allow thousands or millions of people to live in wonderful
>colonies in space, with robots serving their every need, when you
>so strongly deny that man is ever cost-effective in space.
I don't deny "ever", I deny "is". It's not just me that strongly denies
it; it is also in practice military and commercial users of space and
most scientists. And "is" does not mean "will always be". One of the
big benefits of extracting volatiles and organics, and after that metal
regoliths, is that the cost of space habitation comes way down. Ice
rockets alone provide enough propellant and shielding to drop the cost
of an astronaut Mars mission by a factor of ten. So it turns out
that automation is critical to affordably living in space, not the
enemy as the Luddite "manned is more flexible than unmanned" bozos portray
it.
--
Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat //////// Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:24:08 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Oct15.130455.9862@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>I've got you beat cold in the imagination category.
Absolutely correct. Just look at the cost figures you post to this group. :-)
--
Matthew DeLuca "We should grant power over our affairs only to
Georgia Tech those who are reluctant to hold it and then only
Information Technology under conditions that increase the reluctance."
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu - Coda of the Bene Gesserit
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:59:57 GMT
From: Ian Taylor <se_taylo@rcvie.co.at>
Subject: DCX Status?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Allen Sherzer's countdown signature is telling us that the first DCX
flight is only six months from now, anyone know the current project status?
+-- I -------- fax +43 1 391452 --------------------- voice +43 1 391621 169 --+| T a y l o r Alcatel-ELIN Research, 1-7 Ruthnergasse, Vienna A-1210 Austria |+-- n ---- ian@rcvie.co.at --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+
TBD
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:31:58 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: DCX Status?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Oct15.145957.1003@rcvie.co.at> se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor) writes:
>Allen Sherzer's countdown signature is telling us that the first DCX
>flight is only six months from now, anyone know the current project status?
Things are going on pretty well. My countdown may be off by a day or two
but there have been no serious problems with deisgn or construction.
On the political front, all the current threats have been eliminated and
in doing so, we showed Congress that there is considerable support for
SSTO (much to their supprise).
Focus is not moving to the DC-Y vheicle. Insiders are briefing Air force
people to convince them they need it. Sources say they are getting good
reviews from everybody they brief.
On the public front for DC-Y, a program has begun to visit every incoming
Congresscritter by early next year. A briefing packet to use has just been
completed and we are beginning to call (with good results) NSS chapters and
others looking for volunteers. If you are a US citizen and want to help,
